AGGRESSIONS  OF  THE  SLATE  POWER 


SPEECH  OF  HON.  HENRY  WILSON, 

OF  MASSACHUSETTS, 

IN  REPLY  TO  HON.  JEFFERSON  DAYIS. 

Delivered  in  the  Senate,  January  26,  I860. 

Mr.  WILSON.  Mr.  President,  during  the  past 
seven  weeks,  these  Hulls  have  rung  with  angry 
menaces  of  disunion.  Disunion  has  been  pre¬ 
dicted,  disunion  has  been  threatened,  in  the 
event  of  the  triumph  of  the  Republican  party  in 
November  next.  We  have  sat  here  coolly,  calm¬ 
ly,  and  listened  to  those  angry  and  noisy  men¬ 
aces.  Yesterday,  I  gathered  up  some  of  these 
predictions,  some  of  these  arguments,  some  of  I 
these  threats  of  disunion,  and  presented  them  to 
the  consideration  of  the  Senate.  The  Senator 
from  Mississippi,  [Mr.  Davis,]  with,  I  thought, 
something  of  sensibility,  something  of  feeling,  re¬ 
plied  to  those  remarks.  I  know,  sir,  that  there 
come3  to  us,  from  the  loyal  and  patriotic  freemen 
of  the  North,  the  voice  of  condemnat  ion  of  the 
angry  menaces  which  have  been  made  in  these 
Chambers.  There  come  to  Senators  on  the  other 
side  of  this  Chamber  the  imploring  appeals  of 
men  who  are  shivering  over  the  political  graves 
their  leaders  in  these  halls  are  digging  for  them. 
Sir,  I  was  glad  to  see,  yesterday,  when  the  dec¬ 
larations  of  Democratic  presses  and  leaders  were 
presented  to  their  view,  a  degree  of  feeling  man¬ 
ifested  on  the  other  side  of  the  Chamber.  Sena¬ 
tors  are  beginning  to  feel  that  it  is  no  easy  task 
to  look  these  Democratic  menaces  of  disloyalty  1 
to  the  Union  in  the  face.  I  take  the  movement 
yesterday  to  be  a  premonitory  symptom  of  re-  | 
treat  from  positions  which  even  the  Senator  from 
Mississippi  cannot  maintain.  I  say  to  the  Senate  ; 
and  the  country,  that  we  shall  now  witness  the  : 
retreat  of  the  Democratic  leaders  from  their  dis¬ 
loyal  and  revolutionary  positions. 

The  Senator  from  Mississippi  called  upon  me 
to  say  why  I  had  arraigned  gentlemen  here  for  f 
these  avowals.  He  charged  it  upon  the  Repub-  j 
lican  party,  that,  in  1856,  it  went  off  under  a  sec¬ 
tional  banner,  on  a  sectional  platform,  and  under 
the  lead  of  a  sectional  candidate  ;  and,  in  so  do¬ 
ing,  it  seceded  from  the  Union  ;  it  adopted  prac¬ 
tical  secession.  Now,  I  have  to  say  to  that  Sen¬ 
ator,  that  the  call  for  the  Republican  National 
Convention,  in  1856,  wms  addressed  to  all  men, 
North  and  South,  who  concurred  in  the  senti-  ! 
ments  of  the  Republican  fathers,  who  were  op¬ 
posed  to  the  extension  of  slavery,  and  in  favor  of 
its  prohibition  in  the  Territories  of  the  United 
States  ;  and  that  call  would  have  summoned 
Washington  and  Jefferson,  and  the  men  who  i 
founded  the  Government  of  the  country,  into  the  j 
Convention.  Men  from  the  South  came  to  that 
Convention,  and  when  they  returned  to  their 
homes  they  were  denounced  for  their  attendance, 
and  one  of  them  banished  from  his  State.  That 
Republican  call  invited  the  people  who  could 
stand  on  the  doctrine  of  slavery  restriction  that 
came  from  the  pen  of  Thomas  Jefferson  in  1784 — 


a  doctrine  sanctioned  and  sustained  by  the  great 
men  of  this  country  for  two  generations  ;  a  doc¬ 
trine  endorsed  as  constitutional  by  the  Supreme 
Court  of  the  United  States  in  1810,  1819,  1828, 
and  in  1840;  endorsed  a3  constitutional  by  the 
Supreme  Court  of  the  State  the  Senator  from 
Mississippi  represents  in  1818 — I  say,  sir,  that 
the  Republican  call  summoned  all  of  this  class 
of  men  in  America  into  its  National  Convention. 
The  Republican  party  laid  down  principles  as 
broad  as  the  Union  itself.  It  embraced  the  whole 
country  and  the  interests  of  the  whole  country 
in  its  policy.  It  adopted  no  sectional  creed,  no 
sectional  platform,  no  sectional  policy,  but  stood 
upon  the  ancient  faith  of  our  fathers,  and  there 
it  stands  to-day,  upon  an  impregnable  basis, 
where  stood  the  men  who  framed  the  Constitu¬ 
tion  of  the  United  States  and  early  administer¬ 
ed  it. 

So  much,  sir,  for  my  right  to  speak  as  a  Re¬ 
publican,  and  to  rebuke  the  disunion  avowals  of 
men  who  have  adopted  a  new  creed,  a  new  read¬ 
ing  of  the  Constitution,  and  who  threaten  to  pull 
down  the  columns  of  the  Union  unless  this  na¬ 
tion  accepts  their  new  creeds  and  their  new  con¬ 
structions  of  constitutional  power.  That  is  it. 
Let  the  country  understand  it.  The  Republican 
party  stands  upon  the  doctrine  of  Washington, 
Jefferson,  and  the  men  who  framed  the  Consti¬ 
tution.  It  stands  upon  doctrines  sanctioned  by 
the  highest  judicial  tribunal  of  the  country  in 
other  and  better  days.  The  Republican  party 
proposes  nothing  new,  but  stands  by  the  old  tra¬ 
ditional  policy.  A  new  school,  accepting  the 
creed  that  came  from  the  brain  of  Calhoun  in 
1847,  now  exists,  and  we  who  choose  to  follow 
the  fathers  rather  than  these  new  lights  are 
threatened  now  with  the  overthrow  of  the  Gov¬ 
ernment  if  we  do  not  accept  their  new  constitu¬ 
tional  constructions.  That  is  the  whole  of  it, 
and  let  the  country  understand  it. 

The  Senator  objected  to  my  right  to  speak, 
because,  in  1851,  I  attended  a  social  festival  in 
Boston,  and  made  a  speech  at  that  festival.  Let 
me  say  that  I  stand  by  that  speech  here  to-day. 
I  do  not  disavow  a  word  of*  it.  That  speech  is 
not  full  nor  complete,  and  it  does  not  report  all 
I  did  say  ;  but  what  is  reported  I  stand  by.  In 
that  speech  I  did  say,  then  and  there,  to  the  faces 
of  gentlemen,  what  I  have  said  all  my  life.  I 
disagree  with  those  gentlemen  on  several  points, 
and  they  know,  and  everybody  in  my  State  knows, 
that  I  disagree  with  those  gentlemen  in  regard 
to  their  views  of  the  Constitution,  of  State  rights, 
and  of  the  Union.  I  never  uttered  a  word  or 
dreamed  a  dream  of  hostility  to  the  Union  of 
these  States,  and  I  never  even  allowed  myself  to 
put  a  case  of  disunion  even  as  a  supposition,  as 
a  contingency.  But,  sir,  attending  that  festival, 
on  an  invitation,  I  spoke  of  the  fidelity  of  Mr. 
Garrison,  and  of  those  that  associated  with  him — 
men  who  do  not  vote,  men  who  hold  no  offices, 
men  who  will  accept  no  offices,  men  that  you 
may  call  fanatical,  if  you  please,  but  men  who 


18 


in  personal  character,  and  in  all  the  relations  of 
private  life,  have  the  respect  of  all  who  know 
them.  Disagreeing  from  these  gentlemen  in  re¬ 
gard  to  their  construction  of  the  Constitution,  I 
paid  them  the  tribute  of  my  respect  for  their 
zeal,  their  devotion  to  what  they  regarded  to  be 
their  duty.  For  an  oppressed  and  hated  race 
these  men  have  devoted  years  of  self-sacrificing 
toil.  I  do  not  agree  with  them  in  many  of  their 
views  —  I  differ  widely  from  them.  I  do  not 
think  they  have  always  labored  wisely,  but  of 
their  sincere  devotion  no  one  can  doubt ;  and  I 
then  paid  them  my  humble  tribule  of  respect, 
and  I  shall  not  recall  those  words,  here  or  else¬ 
where.  Sir,  I  disagree  with  the  Senator  from  Mis¬ 
sissippi  as  1  do  with  Garrison  in  his  views  of  the 
Constitution  and  of  the  Union,  but  I  have  often, 
in  public  and  in  private,  in  my  section  of  the 
country,  borne  the  sincere  tribute  of  my  admira¬ 
tion  of  his  ability,  intelligence,  and  fidelity  to 
his  convictions. 

The  Senator  arraigns  me  for  having,  in  that 
speech,  paid  a  compliment  to  the  reformers  of 
England,  while  he  says  I  arraigned  England  for 
forcing  slavery  upon  this  continent.  Why,  sir, 
does  not  the  Senator  know  that,  for  nearly  two 
centuries,  the  party  in  favor  of  slavery  and  the 
slave  trade  controlled  the  Government  of  Eng¬ 
land,  and  shaped  her  policy,  and  that,  too,  against 
the  protests,  in  later  years,  of  the  noblest  and 
best  intellects  of  England?  It  is  not  the  class  of 
men  who  planted  slavery  in  America  to  whom  I 
paid  the  tribute  of  my  admiration.  Nor  is  it  the 
class  of  men  who  are  upholding  the  course  of 
England  in  India,  that  I  regard  to-day  as  one  of 
the  greatest  crimes  of  this  nineteenth  century; 
for  wrhen  I  think  of  the  wrongs  England  has  per¬ 
petrated  in  India,  I  ean  hardly  bear  that  an  Eng¬ 
lishman  should  reproach  me  or  reproach  my 
country  with  holding  any  number  of  men  in 
bondage.  But  I  paid  my  tribute  of  respect  to 
that  class  of  men  who,  during  this  century,  have 
abolished  the  slave  trade ;  have  given  freedom  to 
eight  hundred  thousand  bondmen  in  the  West 
Indies ;  who  have  carried  reforms  in  England 
that  have  enlarged  the  privileges  of  the  people  ; 
and  who,  to-day,  are  engaged  in  pressing  upon 
the  Government  reforms  that  will  enlarge  their 
rights  and  their  privileges.  A  more  devoted 
class  of  advocates  of  human  rights  the  sun,  in 
his  course  across  tl?e  heavens,  never  looked  down 
upon,  than  have  acted  in  England  during  the 
present  century.  They  have  carried  their  reforms 
against  hailstorms  of  abuse;  just  such  abuse  as 
is  now  heaped  upon  us  on  this  side  of  the  water 
by  men  who  are  but  repeating  the  words  of  Eng¬ 
lish  presses  and  English  statesmen — of  blind  and 
fanatical  conservatism. 

The  Senator  refers  to  my  remarks  of  yesterday 
as  to  the  slave  power;  and  the  Senator,  in  this 
connection,  does  not  seem  to  understand  what  I 
mean  by  the  slave  power.  I  will  tell  the  Sena¬ 
tor,  and  I  will  try  to  make  him  understand  what 
I  mean  by  it.  When  I  speak  of  the  slave  power 
of  this  Government,  I  mean  the  political  influ¬ 
ence  of  slavery  in  the  Government  of  the  coun¬ 
try.  When  the  Constitution  was  made,  there 
were  about  six  hundred  thousand  slaves  in  this 


country.  They  were  not,  on  an  average,  worth 
one  hundred  dollars  apiece.  Slavery,  as  an  ele¬ 
ment  of  political  power,  was  utterly  contempti¬ 
ble.  There  were  in  the  Constitutional  Conven¬ 
tion  and  in  the  early  Government  men  from 
South  Carolina  and  Georgia  representing  slave 
interests  ;  but  the  great  mass  of  the  men  repre¬ 
senting  the  Southern  States,  especially  Virginia, 
were  men  opposed  to  the  extension  of  slavery, 
opposed  to  the  slave  trade,  and  openly  in  favor 
of  the  policy  of  emancipation.  These  six  hun¬ 
dred  thousand  now  have  increased  to  four  mil¬ 
lion.  Their  value,  when  the  Government  com¬ 
menced,  was  estimated  at  forty  or  fifty  million 
dollars,  and  it  has  increased  to  more  than  two 
thousand  million.  Here  is  a  vast  material  inter¬ 
est.  This  interest  is  upheld  by  State  law ;  and 
the  result  is,  that  men  in  favor  of  perpetuating 
and  extending  this  system  of  slavery  over  this 
continent  have  obtained  the  control  of  the  sov¬ 
ereign  States  of  this  Union.  Why,  sir,  would 
Virginia  send  Washington  to  these  Halls  if  he 
was  living?  Would  Virginia  send  Jefferson  here 
on  the  avowals  he  made,  avowals  such  as  have 
never  been  equalled  by  any  statesman  on  this 
continent,  against  slavery  ?  Would  Virginia  send 
Madison,  and  Patrick  Henry,  and  George  Mason, 
or  men  who  made  the  declarations  they  made, 
into  these  Chambers  now?  Would  Maryland 
send  Luther  Martin  ?  Would  she  send  William 
Pinkney  here  now  to  represent  her  sentiments? 
Would  North  Carolina  send  Judge  Gaston  and 
Judge  Iredell — men  who  have  left  upon  the  rec¬ 
ord  of  the  country  their  sentiments  in  favor  of 
the  emancipation  of  the  bondman  ?  No,  sir.  I 
tell  you  this  slave  power  has  banished  from  the 
councils  of  the  nation  not  only  all  of  that  class 
of  men,  but  nearly  all  of  the  old  Henry  Clay 
Whigs  and  the  followers  of  Andrew  Jackson,  the 
old  national  men  ;  a n&  Congress  now  is  made  up 
of  the  disciples  of  Mr.  Calhoun,  of  the  men  who 
have  dethroned  Jefferson  as  the  apostle  of  De¬ 
mocracy,  and  enthroned  Calhoun  as  their  phi¬ 
losopher,  guide,  and  friend. 

Mr.  MASON.  Will  the  Senator  allow  me  to 
make  an  inquiry,  that  I  may  learn  exactly  his 
position?  Do  I  understand  the  Senator  to  mean 
by  the  slave  power,  as  he  expresses  it,  the  repre¬ 
sentation  of  the  slaves  provided  for  by  the  Con¬ 
stitution?  / 

Mr.  WILSON.  I  will  answer  the  Senator 
frankly ;  no,  sir,  I  do  not.  I  will  tell  the  Senator 
what  i  do  mean.  I  will  try  to  make  myself  un¬ 
derstood  on  this  point.  I  mean  the  influence  that 
results  from  the  holding  of  four  million  men  as 
property,  valued  at  two  or  three  thousand  mil¬ 
lion  dollars.  The  holding  of  it  by  law,  and  the 
desire  to  extend  it  and  perpetuate  it,  have  devel¬ 
oped  an  element  of  political  power;  it  is  bold, 
arrogant,  aggressive ;  it  governs  the  States  ;  it 
governs  the  Federal  Government  to-day. 

The  Senator  from  Mississippi  wanted  me  to 
state,  and  he  said  he  had  called  for  it  before, 
what  we  considered  the  aggressions  of  this  slave 
power.  Well,  sir,  I  will  endeavor  to  give  the 
Senator  from  Mississippi  some  information  upon 
this  point  of  aggression.  He  seems  to  see  none. 
I  will  state  a  few  of  those  points;  and  if  the 


19 


Senator  does  not  see  slavery  aggression  in  those 
points,  then  I  think  he  must  have  come  to  the 
conclusion  that  slavery  i3  imperial,  and  has  ti*e 
right  and  the  power  to  do  what  it  pleases  in  the 
government  of  this  country.  I  choose  to  go 
back  only  some  twenty-five  years.  When  we 
framed  the  Constitution,  the  people  of  the  free 
States  were  not  responsible  for  the  existence  cf 
slavery  in  their  National  capital.  You  fixed 
this  capital  here,  on  the  banks  of  the  Potomac ; 
you  accepted  the  slave  laws  of  Maryland  and 
Virginia ;  accepted  the  slave  code  that  existed 
here;  and  here,  in  the  National  capital,  in  the 
eyes  of  representatives  of  free  men,  in  the  face 
of  representatives  of  foreign  Governments  ;  here, 
in  the  capital  of  this  Democratic  Republic, 
slavery  and  the  slave  trade  existed  and  flourish¬ 
ed ;  and  we,  the  people  of  the  United  States, 
were  all  responsible  for  the  existence  of  slavery 
and  the  slave  trade  in  this  District.  The  Fed¬ 
eral  Government  has  complete  constitutional 
power  in  thi3  District  to  govern  it.  The  people 
of  a  portion  of  the  country  sent  their  petitions 
here,  asking  Congress  to  abolish  Ihe  slave  trade 
and  slavery..  This  constitutional  right  of  peti¬ 
tion,  this  right  that  is  above  the  Constitution, 
as  Caleb  Cushing  said  on  the  floor  of  the  House 
of  Representatives — a  right  won  by  our  ances¬ 
tors  on  the  battle-fields  of  the  Old  World,  which 
they  brought  with  them  here — I  say  this  right 
of  petition,  for  seven  years,  in  these  Halls  was 
cloven  down ;  yes,  sir,  that  right  was  cloven 
down  here  on  the  floor  of  the  Senate  and  of  the 
House  of  Representatives.  Does  not  the  Senator 
from  Mississippi  call  that  an  aggression  upon 
the  rights  of  freemen,  to  deny  their  petitions  a 
hearing  in  the  Hall3  of  the  Congress  of  the 
United  States  ?  This  right  wa3  won  after  a  battle 
of  seven  years  against  that  aggressive  policy  of 
the  slave  power. 

Then,  sir,  ex-President  Adams  presented  a 
petition  purporting  to  come  from  a  few  slaves ; 
and  a  vote  of  censure  was  moved  upon  him,  and 
the  Hall  of  the  House  of  Representatives  rang 
with  bitter  and  fiery  denunciations  of  that  ven¬ 
erable  statesman  for  presenting  that  petition  of  a 
few  poor  slaves  to  this  great  nation.  During 
those  same  days,  when  the  right  of  petition  was 
cloven  down  on  this  floor  and  in  the  other  Hall, 
the  mails  of  the  United  States  were  examined 
by  postmasters  in  the  Southern  States.  Those 
mails  were  rifled,  and  in  Charleston,  South  Car¬ 
olina,  they  were  burned,  and  the  Postmaster 
General  of  the  United  States  wrote  a  letter  in 
which  he  said  he  could  not  approve,  but  he 
would  not  condemn.  Was  not  that  an  aggres¬ 
sion,  an  outrage?  Yes,  sir;  was  it  not  an  ag¬ 
gression  and  an  outrage?  Will  the  Senator 
answer? 

For  years,  the  neutrality  laws  of  the  United 
States,  under  the  expanding  influences  of  this 
slave  power,  were  openly  violated,  and  then 
came  that  question  of  the  annexation  of  Texas 
to  this  Union.  While  that  great  question  was 
pending,  that  was  to  give  to  this  country  three 
hundred  thousand  square  miles  of  slave  soil,  Mr. 
Calhoun,  the  leader  of  the  slave  interests  during 
his  life,  insulted  the  moral  and  religious  senti¬ 


ments  of  the  people  of  this  country,  by  sending 
to  France,  in  the  face  of  Europe,  a  public  docu¬ 
ment  avowing  that  the  annexation  of  Texas  was 
for  the  purpose  of  strengthening  slavery  in  the 
United  States.  Was  not  this  aggression?  Was 
it  not  an  outrage  upon  the  sentiments  of  men 
who  believe  slaver}*  to  be  an  evil,  to  be  a  wrong, 
that  the  Secretary  of  State  should  send  a  public 
document  to  Europe  to  notify  the  Christian  and 
civilized  world  that  the  Republic  of  the  United 
States  proposed  to  annex  a  foreign  nation  in  or¬ 
der  to  uphold  and  perpetuate  slavery? 

Then,  sir,  came  the  Mexican  war,  the  result  of 
that  annexation,  the  predicted  result  of  it ;  and 
whatever  may  have  been  the  cost  of  life  or  of 
treasure  of  that  great  contest,  the  aggressive 
policy  of  slavery  is  responsible  for  it.  AVhen  the 
territories  which  we  acquired  from  Mexico  came 
to  us,  the  people  of  the  tree  States  wished  to 
preserve  them  to  free  labor  and  free  laboring 
men.  The  Democracy  of  the  free  States,  in  their 
Conventions,  in  their  Legislatures,  and  all  their 
Representatives  in  these  Chambers,  with  two 
exceptions,  voted  for  the  application  of  the  pro¬ 
viso  prohibiting  slavery  to  the  Mexican  acqui¬ 
sitions;  but  the  slave  power,  that  the  Senator 
from  Mississippi  cannot  comprehend,  cannot  see, 
proclaimed. that,  if  the  Democracy  of  the  North 
did  not  abandon  that  position,  the  Democratic 
party  of  this  country  was  to  be  rent  asunder  and 
destroyed;  and  under  the  irou  rule  of  this  slave 
power,  the  Democratic  leaders  throughout  the 
free  States  changed  their  principles,  abandoned 
the  doctrine  of  continuing  free  the  Territories  of 
the  United  States  that  came  to  us  free.  Then, 
sir,  California  came  here,  asking  for  admission 
into  the  Union  as  a  sovereign  State.  She  came 
here  robed  in  the  garments  of  freedom  ;  but  the 
influence  of  slavery,  the  slave  power  of  w*hich 
we  are  speaking,  in  this  Chamber,  held  California 
here  for  months,  knocking  at  the  doors  of  the 
Union  for  admission.  In  the  hour  of  their  tri¬ 
umph,  they  gave  to  Texas  fifty  or  sixty  thousand 
square  miles  of  territory,  large  enough  to  make 
a  State  like  Virginia,  and  paid  her  $10,000,000 
to  take  it;  when,  according  to  the  words  of  Mr. 
Benton,  it  was  but  a  mere  claim,  not  an  estab¬ 
lished  right.  General  Houston  raised  the  claim 
to  this  vast  territory ;  but  it  was  not  acknowl¬ 
edged  by  Mexico,  or  established  by  occupation. 

Texas  bad  not  established  that  claim,  and  we 
gave  her  fifty  or  sixty  thousand  square  miles  ; 
and  we  gave  her  $10,000,000.  That  was  the 
settlement.  Then  came  the  fugitive  slave  law. 
I  am  not  here  to  deny  constitutional  provisions  ; 
but  I  take  it,  if  there  be  a  provision  in  the  Con¬ 
stitution  of  the  United  States  for  the  rendition  of 
fugitives,  the  other  provisions  of  that  Constitu¬ 
tion,  in  any  law  that  may  be  made,  are  to  be 
'carried  out.  There  are  those  who  believe  that 
fugitive  slave  law  to  be  unconstitutional.  There 
are  those  who  believe  the  time  will  come  when 
that  fugitive  slave  act  of  1850,  in  its  various  pro¬ 
visions,  will  be  pronounced  unconstitutional  by 
the  general  judgment  of  the  nation. 

Then,  sir,  came  the  repeal  of  the  Missouri  com¬ 
promise  ;  and  the  Senator  from  Mississippi  has 
made  a  complaint  against  us  as  the  violators  of 


20 


that  compromise,  and  not  the  men  who  repealed 
it.  What  is  the  argument  ?  A  bargain  is  made ; 
one  part  has  all  the  benefits  of  that  bargain  ; 
when  the  hour  comes  for  the  other  to  have  its 
benefits,  it  is  taken  from  them.  And  what  is  the 
argument  of  the  Senator  from  Mississippi  ?  It 
amounts  to  just  this  :  we  made  a  bargain  ;  he 
and  I  make  a  bargain  in  regard  to  a  special 
measure ;  he  wishes  to  apply  it  to  another  mat¬ 
ter  ;  I  refuse  to  do  it ;  and  then  the  Senator  says, 
as  you  refuse  to  do  that,  I  will  break  the  old  bar¬ 
gain.  That  is  the  whole  it — no  more,  no  less. 

Then,  sir,  following  the  repeal  of  the  Missouri 
compromise  came  the  invasion  of  five  thousand 
Missourians  into  Kansas.  Was  not  that  an  ag¬ 
gression  ?  They  took  the  ballot-boxes;  they 
elected  a  Legislature  ;  they  passed  a  slave  code  ; 
they  established  slavery.  They  passed  laws  ma¬ 
king  it  a  penitentiary  offence  for  a  freeman  to  say 
that  slavery  did  not  exist  there.  Any  Northern 
man  who  should  say,  in  that  Territory,  that  sla-  J 
very  did  not  exist  there,  was  liable  to  two  years 
in  the  penitentiary.  Was  not  that  an  aggression  ? 
The  same  acts  provided  that  any  man  who  was  op¬ 
posed  to  holding  slaves  in  the  Territory  of  Kansas 
could  not  sit  upon  a  jury  in  a  case  of  that  kind. 
What  was  done  with  the  men  who  led  in  these 
lawless  acts  of  violence  and  fraud  in  the  Terri¬ 
tory  of  Kansas  ?  Clark,  who  murdered  Barber, 
was  in  office,  and  has  since  been  appointed  to 
another  office,  and  confirmed  by  the  Senate. 
Emory,  who  led  the  band  that  murdered  Phil¬ 
lips,  is  now  in  office  in  the  Territory.  Hender¬ 
son,  who  had  the  control  of  the  Delaware  frauds,  j 
of  which  so  much  has  been  said,  has  held  office 
in  that  Territory.  Many  men  engaged  in  those 
acts  have  been  upheld  in  office  by  the  Govern¬ 
ment. 

Then,  sir,  came  the  Lecompton  Constitution. 
Was  not  that  an  aggression  ?  It  came  to  this 
Chamber,  and,  although  it  was  known  by  every 
intelligent  man  in  the  country  that  it  was  not 
the  will  of  the  people  of  Kansas,  it  was  pressed 
in  these  Halls  for  months.  The  attempt  was 
made  to  force  that  Constitution  upon  an  unwil¬ 
ling  people,  a  protesting  people,  a  people  who 
were  imploring  you  to  reject  it. 

Then,  sir,  came  the  English  bill,  another  of 
those  measures  of  aggression,  not  only  an  ag¬ 
gression,  but  an  insult,  for  it  said  to  Kansas, 

“  You  may  come  into  the  Union  as  a  slave  State, 
with  your  present  population  ;  but  if  you  de¬ 
cline  to  come  into  the  Union  with  your  present 
population  as  a  slave  State,  you  shall  not  come 
into  the  Union  until  you  have  ninety-three  thou¬ 
sand  inhabitants. ”  This  was  the  distinction,  a  j 
distinction  made  in  that  bill,  that  a  State,  with 
its  present  population,  could  come  into  the  Union 
as  a  slave  State,  but  if  it  would  not  come  in  as 
a  slave  State,  it  should  stay  out  of  the  Union  un¬ 
til .  it  had  ninety-three  thousand  inhabitants. 
The  people  of  Kansas  rejected  and  spurned  your 
proposition,  by  ten  thousand  majority.  That  is 
not  all.  They  have  held  a  Convention  ;  they 
have  framed  a  Constitution  ;  they  now  ask  ad¬ 
mission  into  the  Union  as  a  free  State ;  it  has 
gone  through  all  the  forms  of  law  ;  and  yet  that 
slave  power  this  day  and  this  hour  is  managing, 


manoeuvring  to  keep  Kansas  out  of  the  Union 
this  session,  under  a  Constitution  of  her  own 
making,  and  I  expect  to  see  that  aggression  tri¬ 
umph. 

Now  we  have  the  new  constitutional  construc¬ 
tion  of  the  right  of  the  master  to  carry  his  slaves 
into  the  Territories,  and  hold  them  there  as  prop¬ 
erty,  under  the  protection  of  the  Constitution  of 
the  United  States.  This  is  a  new  reading,  a  new 
doctrine,  a  doctrine  we  reject,  and  it  is  an  aggres¬ 
sive  policy.  It  is  intended  as  a  policy  of  aggression. 
It  is  not  intended  so  much  for  the  present  as  for 
the  future.  Why,  sir,  I  find  a  letter  written  by  the 
Senator  from  Alabama,  [Mr.  Clay,]  in  which 
he  refers  to  these  matters,  and  speaks  of  the  prac¬ 
tical  importance  to  the  South  of  maintaining  and 
upholding  this  doctrine  of  the  right  of  the  master 
to  carry  his  slaves  into  a  Territory,  under  the 
protection  of  the  Federal  Constitution,  and  we 
have  before  us  this  very  resolution  of  the  Sen¬ 
ator  from  Mississippi,  [Mr.  Brown,]  asking  the 
Senate  of  the  United  States  to  pronounce  upon 
this  doctrine,  and  not  only  to  accept  the  doc¬ 
trine,  but  to  accept  its  consequences,  and  pass  a 
slave  code  for  the  government  of  slavery  in  all 
the  Territories  of  the  United  States. 

Sir,  a  few  years  ago  we  had  the  Ostend 
manifesto.  That  was  dictated  by  this  influence 
of  slavery.  It  was  a  declaration  that  disgraced 
the  diplomacy  of  the  country  in  the  face  of  the 
civilized  world,  and  there  is  no  American  that 
can  look  the  world  in  the  face,  and  read  that 
manifesto,  who  will  not  hang  his  head. 

We  have  sought  the  acquisition  of  Cuba  to 
strengthen  slavery.  During  the  last  ten  years 
we  have  had  a  balance  of  trade  against  us  in 
Cuba  of  one  hundred  and  forty  or  one  hundred 
and  fifty  million  dollars.  We  had  the  offer,  five 
years  ago,  of  a  commercial  treaty  with  Spain  in 
regard  to  the  island  of  Cuba.  A  proposition  was 
made  to  Mr.  Perry,  stating  the  readiness  of  the 
Spanish  Government  to  make  commercial  treaties 
with  us  ;  and  had  this  Government  looked  at  the 
interest  of  the  country,  instead  of  seeking  the 
acquisition  of  that  island,  vphich  we  are  told 
they  would  not  take  if  it  was  free,  they  would 
have  made  a  commercial  treaty  by  which  the 
material  interests  of  this  country  would  have 
been  cared  for.  So  it  is  with  Mexico  ;  so  it  is 
with  Central  America.  The  policy  of  the  acqui¬ 
sition  of  territory  for  the  purpose  of  planting 
slavery  in  it  has  alienated  the  affections  of  the 
people  of  this  continent  south  of  us  towards  us. 
These  people  now  hate  us  and  fear  us,  and  our 
commercial  interests  with  the  nations  south  of 
us  on  this  continent  are,  and  have  been,  sacri¬ 
ficed,  because  it  is  the  policy  of  the  slave  power 
to  acquire  territory  in  which  to  plant  slavery.  I 
charge  that  this  aggressive  policy,  this  expan¬ 
sive  policy  of  the  slave  power,  is  sacrificing  the 
material,  the  manufacturing,  the  commercial  in¬ 
terests  of  this  country. 

There  is  another  subject  to  which  I  wish  to 
refer.  They  have  a  law  in  South  Carolina,  or 
rather  a  series  of  laws  in  that  State,  by  which, 
when  a  vessel  comes  into  the  harbors  of  that 
State,  if  a  colored  inhabitant  of  a  Northern  State 
is  on  board  that  vessel,  he  shall  be  imprisoned, 


the  writ  of  habeas  corpus  denied  him,  and  he  com¬ 
pelled  to  pay  his  own  jail  fees.  In  1843,  Massa¬ 
chusetts  sent  to  South  Carolina  one  of  the  fore¬ 
most  advocates  and  men  of  our  State.  He  went 
to  that  State  to  have  this  law  tested  in  the  judi¬ 
cial  tribunals  of  the  country  ;  and  this  law  was 
pronounced  by  William  Wirt  to  be  unconstitu¬ 
tional.  This  law  was  pronounced  by  Judge 
Johnson,  of  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United 
States,  a  son  of  South  Carolina,  to  be  an  uncon¬ 
stitutional  law.  Massachusetts  sent  one  of  the 
first  lawyers  of  the  country  to  test  this  question 
in  the  courts  of  the  country,  and  he  was  forcibly 
expelled  from  that  State ;  and  to  add  to  that  in¬ 
dignity,  a  law  was  passed,  imposing  the  highest 
penalties  if  any  person  came  into  that  State  for 
the  purpose  of  obstructing  this  law  by  any  legal 
process.  Does  not  the  Senator  from  Mississippi 
regard  that  as  an  aggression  ?  Is  it  not  an  out¬ 
rage  ? 

Mr.  HAMMOND.  I  do  not  feel  disposed  to  in¬ 
terrupt  the  Senator,  or  to  say  anything  on  that 
subject;  but,  on  a  proper  occasion,  it  will  be 
very  easy  to  show  that  that  is  perfectly  warrant¬ 
ed.  We  passed  a  police  law  in  South  Carolina 
for  our  own  personal  protection.  Certain  classes 
of  people  came  there  and  interfered  with  our  do¬ 
mestic  affairs.  Was  it  an  aggression  to  repel 
them  or  put  them  under  surveillance,  or  do  what 
we  pleased  with  them,  while  they  were  there  ? 
We  did  not  bring  them  there.  They  came  vol¬ 
untarily. 

Mr.  WILSON.  I  shall  be  very  glad,  Mr.  Presi¬ 
dent,  to  have  the  Senator  from  South  Carolina, 
on  a  fit  occasion,  endeavor  to  vindicate  the  pol¬ 
icy  of  that  law.  Let  me  say,  however,  to  that 
Senator  now  in  passing,  that  when  South  Caro¬ 
lina  passes  laws  to  protect  herself,  she  has  no 
right  to  infringe  upon  the  constitutional  rights 
of  others.  If  any  persons  go  into  that  State  and 
violate  her  laws,  she  will  punish  them.  Of  that 
I  do  not  complain  ;  but,  sir,  what  right  has  South 
Carolina  to  pass  an  act  that  colored  citizens  of 
Massachusetts,  when  they  go  into  the  harbor  of 
Charleston,  who  are  innocent  of  crime,  shall, 
merely  because  they  happen  to  be  colored  men, 
be  taken  and  imprisoned  before  they  commit  any 
offence  ? 

Mr.  HAMMOND.  All  this  grows  out  of  the 
peculiar  differences  in  the  domestic  institutions 
of  the  North  and  the  South.  Different  laws  must 
be  made,  to  suit  different  countries  and  different 
systems.  Colored  people  are  not  citizens  in 
South  Carolina.  We  cannot  recognise  them 
either  as  citizens  of  South  Carolina  or  citizens  of 
Massachusetts  ;  and  the  Supreme  Court  has  since 
decided  that  they  are  not  citizens  of  the  United 
States.  They  are  therefore  not  entitled  to  the 
constitutional  provision  that  places  the  citizens 
of  the  different  States  on  an  equality  within 
each  other's  limits.  We  had  reason  to  believe 
that  it  was  dangerous  to  the  peace  of  our  com¬ 
munity  and  to  our  peculiar  institutions,  to  per¬ 
mit  them  to  come  there.  Let  me  say  again,  that 
all  this  grows  out  of  what  the  Senators  on  the 
other  side  do  not  seem  at  all  to  comprehend  ; 
that  we  live  under  distinctly  different  social  sys¬ 
tems,  and  must  have  peculiar  laws.  Without 


intending  to  aggress  upon  anybody  else,  or  to 
infringe  on  the  rights  of  any  individual,  much 
less  of  any  State  or  of  any  section,  we  must  be 
allowed  to  take  care  of  ourselves.  That  law  to 
which  the  Senator  alludes  has  been  materially 
modified.  It  has  been  ascertained  that  it  was 
unnecessarily  severe,  and  instead  of  incarcerating 
the  colored  persons  in  jail,  they  are  now  kept 
under  surveillance,  perhaps  allowed  to  stay  on 
their  vessels  ;  I  do  not  recollect  the  exact  modi¬ 
fication,  but  they  are  no  longer  subject  to  the 
same  impositions  they  were  before.  This  South 
Carolina  has  done  voluntarily;  and  thus  South 
Carolina  and  all  the  South  would  ameliorate  the 
condition  of  the  slaves,  if  they  were  let  alone.  It 
has  been  done.  They  are  ameliorating  it ;  and 
we  could  go  on  to  a  greater  degree,  if  we  were 
let  alone. 

Mr.  WILSON.  The  Senator  says  they  live  un¬ 
der  different  social  systems,  and  they  must  have 
tbeir  way  of  protecting  themselves.  Well,  sir,  I 
am  willing  that  they  shall  protect  themselves  ; 
but  in  protecting  themselves,  I  say  they  have  no 
right  to  infringe  on  the  rights  of  others.  What 
are  we  to  think  of  a  social  system  that  requires 
this  sacrifice  of  the  rights  of  others? 

Mr.  CHE3NUT.  Let  me  say  to  the  Senator 
from  Massachusetts,  that  the  ground  we  assume 
in  South  Carolina  on  that  point,  the  ground 
whl.h  has  been  sustained  by  the  courts,  is  that 
every  State  has  a  constitutional  right  to  pass 
such  police  laws  as  will  protect  itself  against  any 
trouble.  You  pass  your  police  laws  in  New  York 
and  in  every  seaport  town  in  the  country ;  you 
quarantine  vessels ;  you  raise  all  sorts  of  bar¬ 
riers  of  protection  against  evils  which  you  an¬ 
ticipate.  Now,  in  South  Carolina  we  have  the 
same  right,  and  it  has  been  so  decided  by  the 
courts,  under  the  rule  of  police  regulations,  to 
protect  ourselves  against  interference  with  our 
rights  and  interests  by  the  Senator  from  Massa¬ 
chusetts  and  his  people.  I  put  it  upon  the  broad 
principle  that  he  has  no  right  to  claim  for  a  ne¬ 
gro  from  Massachusetts,  or  for  a  negro  from  else¬ 
where,  that  he  shall  become  his  emissary  under 
the  pretended  rights  guarantied  by  the  Consti¬ 
tution  to  the  citizens  of  this  country — that  he 
shall  insinuate  him  upon  us  under  any  such  pre¬ 
tence.  We  claim  that  as  a  right  of  sovereignty 
belonging  to  all  free  people,  the  right  of  self- 
protection  by  police  regulations  and  otherwise. 

Mr.  WILSON.  I  want  to  call  the  attention  of 
the  Senators  from  South  Carolina  to  the  precise 
and  exact  issue.  In  Massachusetts,  and  in  sev¬ 
eral  of  our  States,  the  colored  men  are  regarded, 
and  ever  have  been  regarded,  as  citizens.  They 
have  all  the  rights  of  citizens.  They  fought  the 
battles  of  the  Revolution.  They  help  to  make 
the  laws;  they  obey  the  laws.  In  1820,  South 
Carolina  passed  this  act.  William  Wrirt,  then 
Attorney  General  of  the  United  States,  pro¬ 
nounced  it  unconstitutional.  At  that  time,  Judge 
Johnson,  of  South  Carolina,  was  on  the  bench  of 
the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States,  and  he 
pronounced  it  unconstitutional.  Under  these  cir¬ 
cumstances,  men  were  imprisoned,  were  punish¬ 
ed,  and  some  of  them  sold  into  slavery.  Massa¬ 
chusetts  sent  a  lawyer  to  South  Carolina  ;  to  do 


r 


22 


what?  To  take  that  case  before  the  judicial  tri¬ 
bunals  to  be  pronounced  upon. 

Mr.  HAMMOND.  If  the  Senator  will  allow 
me  to  say  one  word  more,  I  shall  have  done. 

Mr.  WILSON.  Certainly. 

Mr.  HAMMOND.  It  so  happens  that  I  was 
Governor  of  the  State  when  Mr.  Hoar  came.  I 
had  known  him  before  in  Congress,  and  he  had 
often  avowed  to  me  that  he  was  not  an  aboli¬ 
tionist.  He  was  a  pleasant,  kind  old  gentleman, 
well  informed,  and  I  had  a  sort  of  friendship  for 
him  during  the  short  time  that  I  sat  near  him 
in  Congress.  He  came,  and  sent  me  his  com¬ 
mission  under  the  broad  seal  of  the  State  of 
Massachusetts.  Knowing  that  perhap's  there 
might  be  some  violence  done,  1  took  care  that 
no  violence  should  be  done  towards  him;  and 
although  he  was,  as  you  may  say,  ejected  from 
the  State,  he  was  only  told  the  situation  and 
circumstances  of  affairs,  and  politely  asked,  and 
escorted  by  some  of  the  first  gentlemen  of 
Charleston  to  the  boat.  Why  did  Massachu¬ 
setts  send  us  a  commissioner  but  for  an  incendi¬ 
ary  purpose?  If  she  wished  to  try  the  constitu¬ 
tionality  of  that  law,  she  could  have  got  lawyers 
enough  in  Charleston. 

Mr.  WILSON.  She  tried. 

Mr.  HAMMOND.  Well,  then,  if  she  could  not 
get  a  lawyer  there,  she  ought  to  have  known 
that  the  state  of  public  feeling  was  such  that 
sending  a  commissioner  there  was  an  act  of  ag¬ 
gression  ;  and  what  right  had  she  to  send  a 
commissioner  there  to  produce  an  abolition  ex¬ 
citement  in  the  city  of  Charleston? 

Mr.  WILSON.  Mr.  President,  I  am  very  glad 
of  the  expose  we  have  here  to-day  from  South 
Carolina,  in  regard  to  this  law - 

Mr.  HAMMOND.  I  am  not  at  all  aware  of  the 
fact  that  she  could  not  get  a  lawyer  there.  I 
doubt  very  much  whether  it  is  so.  She  could 
not  have  tried  all  the  lawyers.  There  are  law¬ 
yers  enough  now  who  would  do  it,  and  I  believe 
always  were.* 

Mr.  WILSON.  Mr.  President,  South  Carolina 
has  a  law,  passed  when  that  Senator  was  Gov¬ 
ernor,  making  it  an  offence  against  the  law  to 
act  as  counsel  in  such  a  case.  I  have  the  law 
before  me. 

Mr.  HAMMOND.  That  was  after  this. 

Mr.  WILSON.  It  was. 

Mr.  HAMMOND.  And  in  consequence  of  it. 

Mr.  WILSON.  Now,  Mr.  President,  let  us  un¬ 
derstand  each  other.  The  Senator  from  South 
Carolina  [Mr.  Chesnut]  says  that  this  excite¬ 
ment  in  1844  was  owing  to  the  aggressions  of 
Massachusetts  on  South  Carolina.  What  ag¬ 
gressions  ? 

'  Mr.  CHESNUT.  Shall  I  answer. 

Mr.  WILSON.  Certainly. 

Mr.  CHESNUT.  Why,  sir,  the  aggressions 
were  of  the  most  palpable  and  continual  char¬ 
acter,  by  the  people  of  Massachusetts,  by  the 
citizens  of  Massachusetts,  by  the  abolition¬ 
ists  of  Massachusetts.  I  suppose  the  new  Re¬ 
publican  party,  under  its  rebaptismal  name, 
had  not  appeared ;  but  Garrison,  that  teacher 
at  whose  font  the  gentleman  was  baptized  in  his 
ideas  of  liberty — a  man  whose  opinion  of  the 


Constitution  of  the  country  is,  that  it  is  a  league 
with  death  and  a  covenant  with  hell — that  very 
teacher  from  whom  the  gentleman,  as  appeared 
from  what  was  read  here  yesterday,  had  taken 
his  lessons  of  patriotism,  of  devotion  to  the 
country  and  to  liberty ;  that  very  man,  and  all 
his  class,  had  been  exciting  the  people,  sending 
abolition  emissaries,  distributing  abolition  doc¬ 
uments  to  us.  That  was  the  aggression  of  the 
citizens  of  Massachusetts,  which  the  people  of 
South  Carolina  had  a  right  to  protect  themselves 
against. 

Mr.  WILSON.  Mr.  President,  the  Senator 
rose  for  the  purpose  of  lelling  me  what  ag¬ 
gressions  had  been  perpetrated  upon  his  own 
State,  and  he  states  no  aggression ;  he  has  none 
to  state.  The  people  of  Massachusetts  never 
made  an  aggression  on  the  people  of  South  Car¬ 
olina  to  this  hour,  and  that  Senator  cannot  put 
his  finger  on  a  solitary  one.  I  defy  him  to  do  it. 

I  say  here,  to-day,  to  that  Senator,  that  he  has 
not,  and  the  men  whom  he  associates  with  never 
have,  produced  the  shadow  of  evidence  that  any 
such  attempt  was  ever  made  by  the  citizens  of 
Massachusetts  to  incite  slaves  to  insurrection  in 
South  Carolina,  at  any  time,  or  on  any  occasion. 
Before  he  makes  that  declaration  again,  I  ask 
him  to  give  us  one  fact,  one  well-authenticated 
fact. 

But  the  other  Senator  from  South  Carolina 
[Mr.  Hammond]  complains  that  we  sent  this 
agent,  because  we  might  have  employed  lawyers 
in  Charleston.  I  say  to  that  Senator,  that  Mas¬ 
sachusetts  did  endeavor  to  engage  lawyers  in 
Charleston  to  take  this  case,  but  she  could  not 
obtain  a  lawyer  in  Charleston  to  test  the  case  ; 
and  we  sent  Mr.  Hoar  to  South  Carolina  to  try 
the  case,  and  South  Carolina  would  not  allow 
him  to  take  that  case  into  court.  She  passed  a 
law  that  one  of  her  most  distinguished  men  on 
the  bench  of  the  Supreme  Court  pronounced  un¬ 
constitutional.  Massachusetts  wished  to  test  it, 
and  sent  a  lawyer  there  when  she  could  not  ob¬ 
tain  one  in  the  State.  The  one  she  sent  was 
driven  from  the  State,  and  then  a  law  was  .passed 
making  it  a  penitentiary  offence  to  come  there 
and  try  that  matter  again,  and  making  it  an  of¬ 
fence  for  a  South  Carolina  lawyer  to  take  a  case 
of  the  kind. 

On  the  18th  December,  1844,  the  Legislature 
of  South  Carolina  passed  a  law  to  prevent  any 
person  thereafter  coming  into  the  State  for  the 
purpose,  or  any  attorney  or  other  person  in  the 
State,  from  instituting  any  proceeding  that  should 
test  the  constitutionality  of  her  law  of  1820, 
which  imprisoned  and  sold  into  perpetual  sla¬ 
very  the  free  colored  persons  of  the  North  coming 
into  the  State  in  merchant  vessels  or  otherwise ; 
visiting  any  such  person  with  the  most  fearful 
penalties. 

The  first  section  of  the  law  enacted,  among 
other  things,  that  if  any  person,  on  his  own  be¬ 
half,  or  in  virtue  of  any  authority  from  any  State, 
should  come  within  the  limits  of  South  Carolina 
with  intent  to  counteract  or  hinder  the  operation 
of  such  laws  as  have  been  made  in  relation  to 
slaves  or  free  persons  of  color,  he  shall,  on 
conviction,  be  sentenced  to  banishment,  and  to 


/ 


23 


SUCH  FINE  AND  IMPRISONMENT  AS  MAY  BE  DEEMED 
FITTING  BY  THE  COURT  WHICH  SHALL  HAVE  TRIED 

the  offence  ;  that  is,  for  life,  if  the  court 
please. 

The  second  section  enacts,  among  other  things, 
that  if  any  person  within  the  State  shall  accept 
any  commission  or  authority  from  any  other  State, 
and  shall  do  anything  to  counteract  or  hinder  the 
operation  of  such  laws,  he  shall,  on  conviction, 
be  sentenced  to  pay  for  the  first  offence  a  fine 
not  exceeding  $1,000,  and  be  imprisoned  not  ex¬ 
ceeding  one  year  ;  and  for  the  second  offence,  he 
shall  be  imprisoned  for  seven  years,  and  pay  a 
like  fine,  or  be  banished  from  the  State,  in  the 
discretion  of  the  court. 

The  third  section  enacts  that  the  Governor 
shall  require  any  person  coming  into  South  Caro¬ 
lina  on  his  own  behalf,  or  for  any  State,  for  any 
purpose  “  having  relation  to  the  laws  or  regula¬ 
tions  of  this  State  on  the  subject  of  slaves  or  free 
persons  of  color,”  to  depart  from  the  limits  of  the, 
State  in  forty-eight  hours,  on  pain  of  banishment 
from  the  State,  and  fine  and  imprisonment  at  the 
discretion  of  the  court. 

The  fourth  section  enacts,  among  other  things, 
that  a  second  offence  against  the  third  section 
shall  be  punished  by  an  imprisonment  not  less 
than  seven  years,  and  by  fine  not  less  than  $1,000, 
and  banishment. 

On  the  same  day,  the  same  State  enacted  a  law 
taking  away  all  benefits,  privileges,  or  rights,  un¬ 
der  the  writ  of  habeas  corpus ,  from  “  every  negro 
or  free  person  of  color  who  shall  enter  this  State 
on  board  any  vessel,  as  a  cook,  steward,  or  mari¬ 
ner,  or  in  any  other  employment  on  board  such 
vessel.” 

Sir,  they  have  a  law  in  the  State  of  Virginia 
authorizing  the  officers  of  that  State  to  go  on 
board  vessels,  and  charge  the  commander  five 
dollars  for  making  the  examination.  They  have 
an  institution  in  Virginia  that  her  Senator  [Mr. 
Mason]  tells  us  “ennobles  the  white  man  and 
the  black  man;”  but  they  have  got  a  class  in 
the  community,  the  negroes,  who,  somehow  or 
other,  do  not  like  that  kind  of  nobility,  and  they 
try  to  run  away  from  this  ennobling  system;  and 
so  they  try  to  hide  themselves,  it  is  said,  on  board 
vessels,  and  suffer  all  the  inconveniences  of  a 
long  passage,  in  order  to  escape  from  this  system 
that  ennobles  them,  and  then  the  officers  charge 
five  dollars  for  making  the  examination  ;  and  if 
a  vessel  sails  out  of  Baltimore,  and  passing  by 
the  const  of  Virginia  is  prevented  by  head  winds 
from  continuing  her  journey,  a  vessel  that  goes 
into  the  harbors  of  Virginia  only  to  anchor,  is 
visited  and  charged  five  dollars. 

Mr.  MASON.  Will  the  Senator  allow  me  one 
moment? 

Mr.  WILSON.  Certainly. 

Mr.  MASON.  I  have  not  looked  back  at  my 
language  on  the  occasion  referred  to;  but  I  think 
I  am  in  the  habit  of  using  language  that  is  ap¬ 
propriate.  I  did  not,  I  am  certain,  use  the  term 
“ennoble”  in  that  connection,  only  because  it 
would  have  been  unmeaning.  I  presume  I  said — 
what  I  meant  to  say,  and  here  repeat — that  the 
experience  of  the  Southern  States  has  shown 
that  the  condition  of  African  bondage  elevates 


both  races.  Now,  sir,  as  to  this  law,  I  cannot 
give  the  honorable  Senator  any  specific  instan¬ 
ces,  because  I  have  not  treasured  them  up  ;  but 
the  honorable  Senator  knows  enough  of  the  co- 
temporaneous  history  of  the  country  to  know 
that  coasting  vessels  along  the  Chesapeake  Bay 
have  more  than  once  stolen,  secreted,  and  car¬ 
ried  away  the  slaves  of  the  proprietors  upon  its 
shores.  It  was  to  prevent  that,  that  the  State  of 
Virginia,  with  full  power  and  a  perfect  right, 
passed  that  police  law  appointing  a  set  of  offi¬ 
cers,  whose  duty  it  is  to  examine  every  coasting 
vessel,  and  see  that  she  has  not  kidnapped  any 
of  our  slaves  ;  and  the  fee — I  do  not  know  what 
it  is,  five  dollars  probably,  or  whatever  it  is — I 
take  it  for  granted  is  paid  by  those  whose  mis¬ 
fortune  subjects  them  to  that  surveillance.  It  is 
a  police  law  of  the  State  ;  and  whether  the  State 
has  a  right  to  pass  it  or  not,  is  a  matter  which 
the  State  will  determine  for  itself  and  by  itself. 

Mr.  WILSON.  A  word  about  the  Senator’s 
language.  I  happened  to  hear  it,  and  I  find  it 
here  before  me.  He  said: 

“  Tlie  South  had  been  led  to  examine  the  subject  because 
of  the  abolition  agitation  ;  and  it  is  now  almost  universally 
believed  that  the  best  condition  of  the  African  race  is  the 
one  they  are  now  subjected  to  in  the  South,  and  that  it  is 
ennobling  to  both  races,  white  and  black.” 

Mr.  MASON.  Will  the  Senator  tell  me  where 
he  got  that  report  ? 

Mr.  WILSON.  I  cannot;  but  it  is  correct,  for 
I  heard  it. 

Mr.  MASON.  I  will  not  appeal  to  any  Sena¬ 
tor;  but  I  will  ask  whether  it  is  possible,  know¬ 
ing  something  of  the  use  of  terms,  that  I  could 
have  applied  that  term  to  the  black  race — that 
it  ennobled  them? 

Mr.  CLARK.  I  desire  to  say,  for  one,  that  I 
distinctly  heard  it,  and  other  Senators  around 
me  did. 

Mr.  MASON.  Then  I  will  not  say  that  I  did 
not  use  it;  but  I  think,  if  I  did,  I  must  have  been 
very  unfortunate  in  the  use  of  terms.  The  mean¬ 
ing  was  “elevate.” 

Mr.  CLARK.  I  will  say  to  the  Senator  that 
we  at  the  time  thought  it  very  singular  that  the 
term  should  be  used,  and  it  caused  some  remark 
among  us. 

Mr.  MASON.  It  was  a  mistake  of  terms.  I 
do  not  remember  the  occasion ;  but  the  proper 
term  is  “  elevate.” 

Mr.  WILSON.  Why  should  a  law  of  that  kind 
be  imposed  on  those  who  have  committed  no  of¬ 
fence?  Why  should  Virginia  not  pay  her  own 
police  officers?  Why  should  they  board  vessels 
sailing  from  Baltimore,  who  are  sent  in  by  stress 
of  weather,  and  tax  them  five  dollars  for  making 
this  examination  ?  But  the  Senator  says  it  is  a 
policy  of  their  own.  I  believe  it  to  be  an  un¬ 
constitutional  act.  At  any  rate,  I  know  it  to  be 
an  unjust  and  unfair  one;  and  I  put  that  act 
among  the  other  acts  of  aggression  that  the  peo¬ 
ple  of  this  country  are  subjected  to  by  the  slave 
system.  No  right,  no  interest,  can  stand  for  a 
moment,  when  the  interests  of  slavery  are  in¬ 
volved. 

Sir,  what  are  the  facts  before  the  country  to¬ 
day?  Is  it  not  true  that  men  are  arrested  in 
many  of  the  Southern  States  who  are  travelling 


F 


24 


upon  their  business  ?  that  laboring  men  are  ar¬ 
rested,  insulted,  and  punished  ?  that  men  are 
banished  from  their  hearths  and  homes  ?  that 
laws  are  being  passed  to  sell  colored  men  into 
slavery  unless  they  leave  their  native  States  ? 
Has  not  Arkansas  passed  an  act  of  that  charac¬ 
ter?  Has  not  such  an  act  just  been  arrested  by 
the  veto  of  the  Governor  of  Missouri?  Has  not 
Judge  Catron  denounced  those  laws  as  a  propo¬ 
sition  to  work  an  oppression  and  outrage?  To¬ 
day,  in  the  Southern  States  of  this  Union,  our 
mails  may  be  opened.  Is  a  Senator  on  this  side 
of  the  Chamber  safe  in  nearly  half  the  States  of 
this  Union  ?  I  say  to  you,  to-day,  what  Senators 
around  me  will  bear  witness  to,  that  our  franks 
are  not  safe  in  many  of  the  States  of  this  Union. 
Is  not  this  a  violation  of  the  right  of  free  speech, 
the  right  of  freedom  of  the  press,  and  a  violation 
of  the  sanctity  of  the  mails?  Are  not  these  ag¬ 
gressions  upon  the  rights  of  American  citizens? 
Are  they  not  the  grossest  aggressions — aggres¬ 
sions  that  would  mark  any  Government  on  earth 
where  they  existed  as  a  despotism  ? 

But,  sir,  the  Senator  from  Mississippi  said,  in 
the  course  of  his  remarks,  that,  when  I  referred 
to  the  passage  of  a  slave  code  in  New  Mexico,  I 
said  what  I  could  not  have  known  to  be  the  case. 
I  have  the  letter  of  the  Delegate  of  that  Terri¬ 
tory,  and  it  reads  : 

“  At  the  solicitation  of  General  R.  Daws,  of  Mississippi ,  I  now 
write  you,  requesting  you  to  draw  up  a  law  for  the  protec¬ 
tion  of  property  in  slaves  in  New  Mexico,  and  cause  it  to  be 
passed  by  our  Legislature.” 

Then  the  request  is,  that  this  law,  when  passed, 
shall  be  sent  to  the  Southern  newspapers,  and 
sent  very  quickly  to  the  New  York  Herald.  This 
letter  is  addressed  by  the  Delegate  from  New 
Mexico  to  the  Secretary  of  that  Territory,  request¬ 
ing  him  to  draw  up  and  pass  such  a  law,  and 
this  at  the  request  of  General  R.  Davis,  of  Mis¬ 
sissippi. 

But  the  Senator  from  Mississippi  suggested 
that  the  Northern  Democracy,  in  case  we  have  a 
contest,  will,  in  the  language  of  General  Cushing, 
“  throttle  ”  us  in  our  own  States.  Now,  sir,  I  should 
like  to  have  an  understanding  on  this  subject.  I 
want  to  know  from  the  Senator  from  Mississippi, 
whether,  in  the  event  of  the  happening  of  the 
contingency  to  which  certain  Senators  look,  the 
election  of  a  Republican  President,  and  an  at¬ 
tempt  is  made  to  go  out  of  the  Union,  or,  rather, 
following  the  suggestion  of  the  Senator  from 
North  Carolina,  to  stay  here,  and  hold  on  to  the 
Capitol,  to  engage  in  a  bloody  struggle,  he  is 
authorized  to  speak  for  the  Democracy  of  my 
State,  and  say  they  will  sustain  him  and  the  gen¬ 
tlemen  with  whom  he  acts  ?  Have  they  author¬ 
ized  him  to  speak  for  them,  and  to  answer  his 
friends  that  they  will  “  throttle  us  where  we 
stand  ?  ” 

Mr.  DAYI8.  The  Senator  asks  me  a  question, 
and,  if  he  wishes  me  to  answer  it  now,  I  will  an¬ 
swer  it,  of  course.  I  suppose  he  could  hardly 


have  expected  any  other, answer  than  that  which 
I  must  necessarily  give,  that  I  have  no  authority 
to  speak  for  the  Democracy  of  Massachusetts.  It 
seems  to  be  almost  a  superfluous  question.  My 
i  reference  to  General  Cushing  was  to  an  expres¬ 
sion  which  he  used  in  a  speech  made  and  pub¬ 
lished  in  Massachusetts,  and  I  considered  him 
very  good  authority  for  those  of  whom  he  spoke. 

Air.  WILSON.  Mr.  President,  General  Cushing 
is  very  good  authority  for  himself  at  the  time  he 
makes  a  declaration.  He  came  to  these  Halls 
about  twenty-five  years  ago,  and  he  made  the 
House  of  Representatives  riug  with  his  eloquence 
against  what  he  was  pleased  to  call  the  aggres¬ 
sions  of  the  South;  and  whenever  Massachu¬ 
setts  was  assailed — and  she  was  assailed  then  as 
she  is  now — he  came  to  her  defence.  When  she 
was  taunted  with  love  of  liberty,  he  said  he 
gloried  in  it,  for  anti-slavery  was  but  the  synonym 
for  love  of  liberty.  General  Cushing  has  seen 
fit  to  change  his  views,  and  at  the  present  time 
he  is  certainly  the  greatest  agitator  we  have  in 
New  England,  making  speeches  remarkable  for 
their  intemperate  zeal,  writing  the  most  singular 
letters,  some  of  which  I  have  before  me ;  and  I 
must  confess  my  utter  amazement  that  a  gentle¬ 
man  of  the  very  large  intelligence  of  General 
Cushing  should  pen  letters  of  such  an  inflamma¬ 
tory  and  ridiculous  character.  This  phrase, 
“  throttle  us,”  is  one  of  his  imprudent  declara¬ 
tions,  which  only  excite  the  amusement  of  the 
people  in  Massachusetts. 

But,  sir,  this  is  not  the  first  time  this  idea  has 
been  thrown  out  during  these  debates,  that  the 
Democracy  of  the  North  will  take  care  of  us  if 
such  a  contest  should  arise.  I  should  like  to 
know  whether  the  Democratic  Senators  and  Rep¬ 
resentatives  from  the  North  will  rise  in  their  pla¬ 
ces  here,  and  say  that,  in  the  event  of  the  elec¬ 
tion  in  November  next  to  the  Presidency  of  the 
Senator  from  New  York,  [Mr.  Seward,]  or  the 
Senator  from  Maine,  [Mr.  Fessenden,]  or  any 
other  of  the  Senators  about  me,  or  any  of  the 
public  men  who  are  the  accepted  leaders  of  the 
Republican  party,  the  administration  will  not  be 
permitted  to  come  into  power,  and  the  Union  be 
dissolved  ?  I  want  to  know  if  those  Senators 
are  ready  to  pledge  the  support  of  the  Northern 
Democrats  to  that  policy  ?  If  so,  I  should  like 
to  have  them  put  the  assurance  upon  the  records 
of  the  Senate.  Do  the  Democratic  Senators  from 
the  North  intend  to  aid  those  who  are  now  mena¬ 
cing  the  Union  ?  Sir,  if  Democratic  Senators 
from  the  loyal  North  and  West  intend  to  give  aid 
to  those  who  are  now  menacing  the  unity  of  the 
Republic,  if  the  representatives  of  the  Northern 
Democracy  in  these  Chambers  have  given  assu¬ 
rances  that  when  the  contest  comes,  if  come  it 
must,  for  the  preservation  of  that  Union  which 
makes  us  one  people,  they  will  throttle  us  in  our 
tracks,  let  them  now  put  their  intentions  upon 
the  records  of  the  country.  Let  them  speak  for 
themselves. 


BUELL  k  BLANCHARD,  Printers,  Washington,  D.  C. 


